|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
dontbanmebro
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
20
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 01:40:00 -
[1] - Quote
Adelphie wrote:I've noticed the traffic in null slowly reducing to a point where it is actually safer to be around null than highsec in many cases!
citation needed |
dontbanmebro
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
21
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 15:44:00 -
[2] - Quote
I like how a two months pause after a near-concurrent string of galaxy-spanning wars running almost three years from the return of bob (as IT) until the fall of raiden (bob again) means nullsec is "dead". Ignoring, of course, the huge shitups that are developing in Geminate and Delve.
All these "nullsec is dying" threads are just shadow whines over t2 prices, which actually have little or nothing to do with nullsec politics and almost everything to do with tech stockpiles finally running out.
Of course that doesn't stop the legions of uninformed having an opinion on things they know nothing about. |
dontbanmebro
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
21
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 16:34:00 -
[3] - Quote
They're right, you're wrong.
Jump bridges are for internal day to day use, not strategic power projection. When you have a week to save a system, 50 jumps or 500 jumps makes no difference.
They are also correct that you shouldn't talk about things you know nothing about. As a general rule of thumb, in games as in life in general. |
dontbanmebro
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
21
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 16:41:00 -
[4] - Quote
Marconus Orion wrote:Why go to the trouble of setting up multiple "forward staging systems" on the edges of your territory when you can have one home system and if something goes down, grab the closest jump bridge/Titan bridge and be there in a few moments??
...you're asking as if you know the answer, when the answer is that nullsec alliances do deploy and don't use JBs to "project power". Your suggestion is directly refutable by verifiable facts. You should stop posting about topics you know nothing about, especially when someone has already explained why you are wrong.
Marconus Orion wrote:Jump bridges is a form of power projection. You can't dispute that Lord Zim.
Yes he can. He already has. All you have done is suggest some fact that is directly refutable by verifiable facts. Again, if you don't know, don't talk.
|
dontbanmebro
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
21
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 16:47:00 -
[5] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:You want to talk about "power projection"? Have a look at all the capitals out there.
Correct. Capital fleets and dominion sov timers are what allow groups to control enormous amounts of space.
Jump bridges are mostly an internal upgrade that allows people to make their day to day in their space better, and they actually incentivize laying a claim to something.
If you want to make nullsec "less vibrant", then nerf/remove jump bridges
|
dontbanmebro
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
21
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 16:53:00 -
[6] - Quote
Marconus Orion wrote:Yes, capitals are a form of power projection. Have I ever said they were not?
This thread is starting to be derailed so if you want to take 'power projection' to another thread, I'm game. You can list all the mechanics that fall under it and how much it contributes to power projection. Here is your chance to set everyone straight on what is what.
Hey, just admit you spoke without thinking, and learn a valuable life lesson in the meantime. Who sayd time spent in video games is wasted?
No need to run backwards so fast; you might fall over and hurt yourself.
|
dontbanmebro
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
22
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 16:59:00 -
[7] - Quote
Is this is some kind of "they turk mah incursions so I'm gonna turk their JBs" or something?
All these people opining on things they clearly have no familiarity with or understanding of...it's just weird. |
dontbanmebro
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
22
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 17:13:00 -
[8] - Quote
Kuetlzelcoatl wrote:Trying to frame unwanted opinions as invalid is one of the oldest tricks in the book.
Framing a discussion after you have already proven the invalidity of one side's arguments is perfectly valid.
Just because I make fun of you for being wrong, doesn't make you right.
|
dontbanmebro
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
22
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 17:14:00 -
[9] - Quote
Herr Hammer Draken wrote:If null is not viable and a dull place to be
Oh, sweet then it isn't and these threads are just shadow whines about t2 prices by people who have no clue what they're talking about. |
dontbanmebro
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
22
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 17:18:00 -
[10] - Quote
Riedle wrote:PS: With the amount of anger coming from some of the biggest users of JB's, I'd say we are on the right track with nerfing them.
"We should deport all x people from our country because they're all actually subversive fifth columnists for martians. Look how mad all these x people are getting, we must be on the right track."
Seriously, seriously, seriously dumb argument. Like 5th grade child level. Are you, by chance, ten years old? If so, I apologize. |
|
dontbanmebro
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
22
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 17:21:00 -
[11] - Quote
Herr Hammer Draken wrote:Look in the mirror for your problems.
What problems? I know you love the big speech you have that you copy paste into anywhere you think you can shoehorn it, but what actual problems are you suggesting you're solving?
I know this question will require you to make a self-reflective intellectual inventory that will weaken you conviction to copy paste your self-described posting masterpiece, but I suggest you need to look in the mirror to solve this problem.
P.S. owned |
dontbanmebro
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
22
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 17:33:00 -
[12] - Quote
CCP likes blobs. They like mass warfare. They want to be able to say they packed x thousand faggots into one system for epic "player-driven content". Soundwave and the new head baldin guy said as much multiple times during presentations last fanfest.
I personally don't like blobs, but you're mistaken if you think CCP wants to reduce the incentive for blobbing. What they want to do is reduce a group's ability to control vast swathes of space it doesn't use or it "underuses", and nerfing JBs will be in direct violation of that.
|
dontbanmebro
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
22
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 17:34:00 -
[13] - Quote
Riedle wrote:Surely if you aren't ever using JB's you wouldn't have set so many of them up and you wouldn't be so adamently opposed to nerfing the crap out of them would you?
Except it's already been explained multiple times that they are used and what exactly they're used for, it's just not "power projection" like you claim.
|
dontbanmebro
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
22
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 17:43:00 -
[14] - Quote
Riedle wrote:Well for someone who likes to tell others they are dumb...
Your post is literally nonresponsive. I literally cannot continue the line of conversation because your post is irrelevant to the one you quoted and mostly incoherent.
Congratulations.
Again, if you actually are a child, I apologize. I will, however, say that this is generally a more grown-up venue, perhaps not in maturity, but at least in terms of the expectation placed on the command of the English language and basic reasoning.
|
dontbanmebro
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
22
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 17:47:00 -
[15] - Quote
Rer Eirikr wrote:How would nerfing JBs change the Null political landscape to change NAPs, please, enlighten us.
Because he just said so, duh. Plus he's "seen it". SEEN "it". Mull that over for a minute there.
I'm getting flashes of Jade here.
|
dontbanmebro
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
22
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 18:06:00 -
[16] - Quote
Uhhhh...I think I may have just had a flash of brilliance with the station issue...why not just remove them as sov roadbumps altogether? If the issue is stations just being thrown up to make a region more of a headache to take, why not just remove them as a separate timer from the ihub?
This completely neuters the contentious destructible stations issue, and decreases a lot of the dominion sov grind.
What am I missing here? |
dontbanmebro
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
22
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 19:31:00 -
[17] - Quote
I see we've backpedaled so far now that we've fallen over ourselves and we were really talking about small gang pvp all along.
Unfortunately you're still wrong, as the problem with small gang pvp in nullsec is lack of meaningful targets for them to hit. The best defensive option is to just dock up and wait them out, which a lot of people choose, with most engagements being about voluntary "goodfights" instead of necessary defence to an applied offence. PI offices were a move in the right direction, but still part of this failed "hit point and timer" paradigm.
All removing JBs will do for small gangs is mean less people bothering to own and use nullsec space, and correspondingly less targets.
Fortunately for everyone else, this concept of "farms and fields" is what is driving current discussions over nullsec redesign, so the opinion of clueless mouthbreathers on JBs is meaningless. |
dontbanmebro
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
22
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 19:47:00 -
[18] - Quote
Marconus Orion wrote:Well this thread went to ****.
Says legendary "constructive poster", marlona sky.
Maybe if people stop talking about things they're utterly clueless of, other people won't have to spend ten pages disabusing them of their ridiculous opinions |
dontbanmebro
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
22
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 20:01:00 -
[19] - Quote
Dragon Outlaw wrote:Well I for one enjoy watching Forum PvP.
That's all GD is really good for. The idea that you can have an honest and constructive debate in an open forum with anonymous space avatars is beyond farce.
That's why knowledge communities have qualifications and very strict formats for discourse. Imagine if biologists working on some advanced topic had to address the input of some anonymous creationist every few posts. It just wouldn't work.
The irony of someone like marlona decrying a lack of constructiveness is overwhelming, as people like him are a key reason this forum is utter trash and only good for verbally mushroom-stamping fools. |
dontbanmebro
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
23
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 20:36:00 -
[20] - Quote
Marconus Orion wrote:You could always explain how things really work in those aspects of the game instead of badgering them with insults and personal attacks.
The insults and personal attacks come after people refuse to be disabused of their uninformed opinions, particularly when they start with "it should be like x" instead of "is there a reason it's not like x?".
|
|
dontbanmebro
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
23
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 20:46:00 -
[21] - Quote
The ultimate point is that CCP already know, in theory, what needs to be done, from talking with people who actually know wtf they're talking about. The only real issues are implementation and resource allocation, which are largely outside of even the CSM's input, and definitely outside of the influence of the hoi polloi.
|
dontbanmebro
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
23
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 20:58:00 -
[22] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:As if it hasn't been explained, multiple times in this thread alone.
What she said.
|
dontbanmebro
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
23
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 21:14:00 -
[23] - Quote
Marconus Orion wrote:Why is there power blocs in null?
Because numbers generally help win fights.
Marconus Orion wrote:Why isn't an alliance enough?
While you may not want to share an alliance with some group, you are more than happy to share a loose strategic arrangement with them.
I'm going to take a shot in the dark here and guess that you're operating under some "powerblocs are bad" paradigm, which is actually utterly false. Nullsec is a byzantine maze of overt and covert relations among individuals and groups. This is a natural and desirable product of the way the nullsec game is designed. |
dontbanmebro
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
23
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 21:23:00 -
[24] - Quote
Delen Ormand wrote:Let's at least make an effort to understand where the other side is coming from, otherwise whatever changes or criticisms we offer are not going to be balanced in favour of the game as a whole.
When there`s an invested and informed ``side`` against an uninvested and uninformed ``side`` there`s no point to ``understanding``, only a need to demonstrate that the uninformed and uninvested shouldn`t be talking at all.
|
dontbanmebro
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
23
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 22:25:00 -
[25] - Quote
Dragon Outlaw wrote:garbage
Yes, it is fear of all your really good ideas. Because they're really good. |
dontbanmebro
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
23
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 22:33:00 -
[26] - Quote
People play in null despite the risk/reward imbalances because they enjoy the human drama. They like being a part of something bigger than themselves, even if it's just a cheap veneer painted over pixel spaceships.
The biggest job I had when I ran a nullsec corp was to keep people informed, but in a way that told a story or a "narrative". That's what people wanted more than anything, and that's what kept them logging in and playing.
When we talk about improving nullsec, we're talking about adding greater depth to the elements behind that human drama, so it's not just a few select content-creators driving everything, but a more natural and organic development of cooperation and conflict driven by the very mechanics of the game.
The amazing stories that come out of nullsec are largely in spite of game mechanics, as opposed to a direct and engineered product of them. |
dontbanmebro
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
23
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 22:41:00 -
[27] - Quote
Rer Eirikr wrote:Ahh, see, I knew you could informative post :)
Hey, if more people were asking questions and less people making uninformed walls of text, I'm sure a lot of us who actually know a thing or two about the topic would be making more positive and informative posts.
Posting on GD is usually like trying to empty an ocean of self-righteous stupidity with a spoon. |
dontbanmebro
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
25
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 22:50:00 -
[28] - Quote
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:It is a mistake to see level 4 missions as an end in themselves rather than a means to an end.
I run level 4 missions to pay for pvp, which I fail at on a regular basis.
The problem with the "make money in xsec to pvp in ysec" theory is that it inherently means less pvp in ysec. Furthermore, that pvp is less organic and more contrived, which in turn makes it less compelling and engaging. You want to create an "ecosystem" of conflict and cooperation that starts with people in space making money.
Funny enough, I actually think hisec incursions were great in theory. A bunch of people in fleets shooting red crosses is just an inch away from a bunch of people in fleets shooting each other, or shooting each other to get at more red crosses. I would love to see a balance to hisec income where incursions are a natural and sensible progression from level 4s, followed by another natural progression to low, null, and WHs. |
dontbanmebro
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
25
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 22:58:00 -
[29] - Quote
Xen Solarus wrote:Ban Bindy wrote: The current cult of shooting non-combatants in high sec provides easy kills for those who live and die by the billboard.
These are the factors I think have killed null sec play.
^ This. Make High-Sec more secure, and force all the lazy people that claim to be doing PVP to actually go and do PVP.
Hey, great, a double quote of why you will never get constructive debate on here.
Honestly, if people want real constructive debate, go to kugutsumen and open a thread in the "serious discussion" subforum. It may be slower, but you'll get very, very informed and constructive posts from people of all secs.
GD is for the culture war between idiots and not-idiots. |
dontbanmebro
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
25
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 23:01:00 -
[30] - Quote
Riedle wrote:[quote=dontbanmebro]blah blah blah
Yes, it wasn't at all obvious that you were utterly clueless and got embarrassingly stomped on for ten pages. |
|
dontbanmebro
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
25
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 23:03:00 -
[31] - Quote
Rer Eirikr wrote:I know, I'm a masochist
Yes, it's hopeless; noble, but hopeless.
I'll stick to stomping on mouthbreathers. |
dontbanmebro
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
25
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 23:14:00 -
[32] - Quote
Talon SilverHawk wrote:Why is the answer always to nerf hi sec (because that always forces players into low and nul ... not) . leave it alone and do something to low and null to make it more enticing.
This is a bit "out there", but it's my impression that the impact is not proportional 1:1, as in a doubling of nullsec income would have less impact than a halving of hisec income, even though the impact on relative income is nominally the same. This would the dampening effect of the "risk" factor.
Therefore, it's my impression that you get far more bang for your buck by reducing hisec income, which is then also easier on the macroeconomic issues that have reared their heads over the last half year.
Personally I actually think it's a moot point, as you won't see a level 4 nerf. I'm in the camp for making nullsec more interesting and more of a natural progression by other means than strictly solo grind risk/reward balances. |
dontbanmebro
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
26
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 23:31:00 -
[33] - Quote
Adelphie wrote:But this again is another barrier to entry for people coming in and exploring what null has to offer.
Just gonna grab this first. This is the same argument that people say about gate-camps and bubbles because they can't "explore nullsec". If your idea of "coming out" to nullsec is to tool around in your mission drake and "see the sights", you've already lost. This is a failure of transitions, which is almost solely CCP's fault and problem to fix.
However, neutering jumpbridges because you think that will lead to more people wandering around nullsec is an absolutely awful argument, just as awful as people who want to "get rid of gatecamps" because their mission drakes keep dying there. People need to be better prepared for the nature of nullsec, not have that danger nerfed down to their level.
Overall the rest is a reasonable post, but your argument has been addressed already (which was not your corpmate's original argument at all btw).
The lack of low-level conflict is a serious issue that almost everyone, besides bots I guess, would like to see addressed. The solution is more incentives for roaming gangs and more incentives to actually be in space defending against them instead of just docking up to let them pass. Removing jump bridges just means less people altogether in nullsec, and less reason for people to claim space and fight to defend it, which means less target for roaming gangs.
I will add that this is the first time I think I've ever heard a JB whine from nullsec roamers in terms of allowing people to better defend their space from roaming gangs, and I highly doubt you'll gain any traction with it whatsoever.
|
dontbanmebro
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
26
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 23:39:00 -
[34] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:Talon SilverHawk wrote:Tal null isn't for solo players and nobody is interested in catering to you, if you want that go to lowsec or wormholes 0.0 is for empires casual players in the empires are great! i'm one of them. casual players who think they can treat 0.0 like a slightly more dangerous l4? well they can **** right off, if you want to experience 0.0 before joining a corp or making your own go to npc 0.0
Can't repeat this enough. Nobody gives a **** about the guy who wants to sneak in and not impact anything. That's the whole point of wanting more people because we want more impact. Nullsec with double the current participants would be a charnel house of conquest, betrayal, last minute saves, humiliating defeats, on and on and on. Again, that human drama that brings people to Eve and keeps them paying that subscription.
If that's not for you, then great. Good for you. Nobody gives a **** about you either way. |
dontbanmebro
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
27
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 23:51:00 -
[35] - Quote
Adelphie wrote:This is quickly getting back on track - I like.
One thing which a few people have said on this page is that there needs to be more incentive to do small gang pvp. One of the most compelling features I have heard is the idea of raidable moon mining pos's where a small gang can effectively attack, and steal, moon minerals from larger alliances. Obviously this would have to be well balanced and thought out, but I think it has legs.
Gives small gangs a reason to to attack hostile space - gives alliances reasons to defend.
What are peoples thoughts on this?
TL;DR yes, but likely something less tz sensitive.
The general idea is great, and exactly what CCP is talking about with "farms and fields". Team A builds something. Team B uses violence to disrupt and/or leech off what team A has built. Team A either develops a military response or hires Team C to use violence against Team A.
Boom, you have content.
My guess is that it won;t be moon-mining because then you have the time zone issue, forcing everyone to be pan-global collectives. A far more likely system will be something where you "spool up" value extraction in your space during your prime activity times, which raiders can then interfere with and/or siphon off. For example, as EU tz alliance A hits its prime-time, all the ratting "spools" up the payouts. Then EU tz alliance B comes in to A's space and drives them out of their "spooled-up" and highly lucrative anoms (or whatever) and starts running them. Now A can either fight back, in which case B gets a fight, or they can hide like cowards, in which case B gets fat cash and "spools" down A's anoms (or whatever).
|
dontbanmebro
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
27
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 23:57:00 -
[36] - Quote
Delen Ormand wrote:That's a pretty interesting idea. But in real life, an ecosystem works because once the alpha predator dies, it becomes food for others. I don't see an equivalent for that in Eve or even a real equivalent to scavengers living off the kills of the alpha predators (I guess some kinda protected salvage ships would be it).
The base level is rats and roids.
|
dontbanmebro
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
28
|
Posted - 2012.06.21 00:35:00 -
[37] - Quote
Large Collidable Object wrote:IMHO - that's the entire problem.
yup, yup, and more yup
|
dontbanmebro
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
28
|
Posted - 2012.06.21 00:49:00 -
[38] - Quote
Large Collidable Object wrote:I'm growing tired of calling out the obvious for years without ever hearing a counter-argument and CCP being obviously deaf in that regard.
They're not though.
Now, the odds of them not completely bungling the implementation of this theory is another matter.
|
dontbanmebro
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
31
|
Posted - 2012.06.21 01:10:00 -
[39] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:Anyone want to start us off?
NULLBEARS WANT LOCAL TO PROTECT THIER MOONBOTTING GAAARRRR GOONIES MITAININI YEARHHHHH
|
dontbanmebro
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
31
|
Posted - 2012.06.21 01:23:00 -
[40] - Quote
0.0, low, and null are the actual game, not just 0.0.
If people want to tool around in hisec forever, then fine, more power to you. You will, however, see more and more changes that lessen hisec income and content so new players stop getting stuck there as much. Crybaby hisec forum warriors are just gonna have to deal wiz it.
|
|
dontbanmebro
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
32
|
Posted - 2012.06.21 01:26:00 -
[41] - Quote
Kimmi Chan wrote:I don't know that removing local in and of itself is a solution to the root of the issue. I do like the ideas that were presented in this thread as it adds a level of immersion to the intelligence aspect of null sec as well as to high and low. I would encourage you to at least read the OP in the thread and leave your comments Mors makes some good points and addresses them pretty well. It may not suit the Nuke Local crowd or the Leave Local Alone crowd but at least consider the proposition.
Removing local and replacing local are two completely different arguments. I personally have np with the latter, though I do get nervous whenever we're talking about CCP hamfists touching anything that core to gameplay.
Personally I'd say there are better uses of time and bigger fish to fry, but the fundamental idea, in a vacuum, is sound. |
dontbanmebro
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
32
|
Posted - 2012.06.21 04:18:00 -
[42] - Quote
Nick Bete wrote:Weaselior wrote:i also enjoy that morons keep thinking "moon moving" would nerf goonswarm
i have news for you guys, guess who the only alliance is that has enough bodies to throw at the problem This kind of crap is a large part of the problem. Screw null. You brainiacs made the problem now enjoy the mess you've made.
This literally makes no sense. I'm sure you think it does, but I assure you it does not. |
dontbanmebro
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
34
|
Posted - 2012.06.21 04:37:00 -
[43] - Quote
Ashera Yune wrote:NAPFEST. You need to end it to make Nullsec Vibrant again.
Please describe for us the nature of this napfest and quantify how it has lowered the overall level of conflict compared to some general running average.
Thanks.
|
dontbanmebro
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
37
|
Posted - 2012.06.21 12:55:00 -
[44] - Quote
Talon SilverHawk wrote:dontbanmebro wrote:Oh, I see we got a visit from the brigade of people who would never leave hisec under any condition telling us the fabricated conditions (excuses) why they never leave hisec.
You are utterly irrelevant to any discussion of anything.
Oh, and we're coming for your level 4s too. Why are you repeating your useless trolls in both threads, just curious ? Tal
Because they're both relevant.
Duhn.
Tal
|
|
|
|